27 August 2008 1:24 PM

The rape of reason

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Many of the people who write to me, and many who comment on this site, are would-be censors who would silence me if they had the power to do so. Their mails, phone calls, letters and comments are based on the belief that it was wicked of me to express a view that the writer does not like.

They do not wish to disagree with what I say. They object to my saying it at all.

Such letters contain no actual facts or arguments, only denunciation. Try as I may, I find it difficult to learn anything from most of them except that free speech and thought have seldom been so endangered. This is an ever-growing problem in a society where people are not embarrassed to be intolerant, or ashamed of hating free speech. My article about rape, and compensation for rape victims who admitted to being drunk, was in fact in itself a plea for free speech. My opinion is perfectly legitimate and wholly justifiable. It is grounded in a loathing of crime in general, and of the crime of rape in particular, which I clearly said was a despicable act of treachery which deserved to be severely punished.

The view I set out ( although British government officials had originally taken it) had not been expressed or defended by the government for fear of the tempest of abuse and misrepresentation from the militant ultra-feminist lobby that would howl around the ears of anyone who dared to say it. In the media discussions which I heard, nobody stood up for what the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority had originally done, or even suggested that they might have had a point.

Therefore government ministers and officials were reduced to saying things that were not true - specifically that ‘a victim of rape is not in any way culpable due to alcohol consumption’. They simply caved in, presumably out of fear. In my view, people who cannot stand up for logic and reason, in the face of hysteria , misrepresentation and unreason, should not be paid large salaries out of taxes to be ministers, or given the privileges and powers that go with office.

This week I plan to give the fullest possible answer to those who commented, here and elsewhere, on this article about rape and compensation. Time and space prevent me from answering every single individual remark, but I will try to respond to every sentiment expressed and every major fact produced. If anyone feels that I have missed an important argument or fact, I ask them to point this out to me. It is not intentional.

Let me start, though, with an aside aimed at the amusing site known as 'Christopher Hitchens Watch'. This is normally devoted to denouncing my brother Christopher for straying ( as they believe he has) from the Shining Path of leftist orthodoxy. Its authors like me even less than they like him because I am a right-wing monster who deserted the Left when they were presumably at play-school or yet unborn. They cannot really cope with the fact that their former hero is (for instance) in favour of the Iraq war, whereas I am (for instance) against it. I am right, yet I am bad. It does not compute for them, but even so this confusion is another weapon with which they can wallop their lost leader. So I occasionally feature as a walk-on character.

Last week, amid much abuse of me on the rape article (mainly of an uninteresting and repetitive kind), a contributor to 'Christopher Hitchens Watch' proclaimed "Let's face it, both brothers like to drink to unconsciousness." Now, wait a minute here. This is certainly not true of my brother, though he can drink a great deal and makes no secret of it. But it's even less true of me. This isn't a claim of moral superiority. I have no choice in the matter. I have never been able to drink alcohol in any quantity without becoming horribly, memorably (and soberly) unwell, something I discovered in my teens, when my capacity was slightly less small than it is now. I wouldn't physically be able to drink myself unconscious as I'd be too ill to lose consciousness. I don't want to be pious about this. It's just so. I can cope with about half a bottle of wine as long as I eat a meal with it, and that's it, though I find that even that's stretching things a bit these days. I get far more pleasure from arguing than I do from drink.

Does this make me less sympathetic to drunks than I might otherwise be? Perhaps. I can't say I'm jealous. But I hardly think it has much bearing on the matter. If I could get drunk, I wouldn't be fool enough to claim that it didn't put me at greater risk in certain important ways.

Several of those commenting, seeking to avoid the actual point of the article, headed for this part of the argument and abused me for my own alleged boozing habits, some purporting to believe that half a bottle of wine was some sort of knock-out dose and that i was a hypocrite. This was just an attempt to avoid the point by ignoring the argument and going straight for the person, a well-known cheap trick that proves nothing.

But the word I used was 'drunk' and the example I used was 'several' ( which I would take to mean at the very least four or five) 'Bacardi Breezers', a drink consumed , so far as I know, with the sole intention of making the drinker drunk. Aren't concoctions of this kind , sickly sweet and 5% alcohol, aimed at people who don't like the taste of alcohol but still want to consume it? Isn't there a risk from them that, because the taste of alcohol is masked in syrup, they are not aware of how much they are drinking? Women, as is well known, generally have a lower tolerance of alcohol than men and so are at more risk of becoming drunk. And if anyone really wants to claim that drunkenness is uncommon among modern British young women, good luck to them.

Now to the question of what difference it makes if they are drunk. Now, here's what I never said. I never said that it was their fault if they were then raped. Rape, as I made clear, is entirely the responsibility of the rapist. I am not one of those who blames the victim for being attacked, robbed, or otherwise harmed by crime. On the other hand, I would guess that many of my ultra-feminist critics, being conventional leftists, would tend to blame the victim and sympathise with the attacker in the case of crimes other than rape. Their militant punitive views are reserved for crimes against ultra-feminism, crimes they regard as political offences against the New Order they want ( more of this later).

Unlike them, I am consistent. I think criminals are wholly responsible for their misdeeds and should be punished for them. That very much includes rapists. The fact that a victim was drunk shouldn't reduce the sentence by a single second. In fact, on reflection, I rather think it should increase it, since the treachery involved was greater.

But the issue here was never whether rape should be punished, or by how much. That wasn't in doubt. I made my position on this completely clear in the original article - so clear that a large number of correspondents simply ignored what I said, so here it is again: "Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been." As the ultra-feminists themselves like to ask "What part of this don't you understand?"

The issue was whether the state should pay the same compensation to a sober rape victim as it should pay to a drunk one. In this, the question of 'culpability', that is to say not responsibility for the crime against them, but responsibility for needlessly putting themselves in a position of danger, arises. "Culpability", the thing which Bridget Prentice maintains does not apply to drunk women who get raped, refers to a responsibility in civil law for taking care of yourself. It is not the same as "guilt' which refers to criminal responsibility for a criminal action. Try it another way. The rapist is not culpable for the rape. He is guilty of it. The victim may or may not be partly culpable for creating the conditions in which the rapist could strike.

Tax-funded compensation for being a victim of crime is a new concept in Britain, and I do not know if it exists anywhere else. As I said in my original article it is probably a side-effect of the failure of the British system to catch and punish criminals. I can't think of any other way in which it could be justified, except as a tacit admission that the state has failed in its duty to protect the victim. Instead of justice, I said, the state offers a cheque. It strikes me that a cheque for £11,000 (who worked that figure out?) would be scant compensation for having been raped, and that what has been lost in the rape could not be restored by any amount of money. I should have thought that a serious feminist might actually have made this point. Call me old-fashioned.

I will make one confession of fault. I must admit to having been too vague when I sought to come up with a non-gender-specific parallel to being raped while drunk. My road-accident comparisons weren't good enough. The alternative comparison, of being mugged, put forward by "Rachael" was far better.

She asked: "Would you have been any less deserving of sympathy if [you had been drunk and] someone had mugged or injured you?".

Well, the answer to that is that yes, absolutely, I would have been much less deserving of sympathy if I had been drunk and someone had mugged or injured me. I would have contributed to my undoing by being needlessly and obviously vulnerable, ie partly culpable in civil law for the consequences for which I was claiming compensation. . Would that make the crime against me less heinous? No. Would it mean that my assailant deserved a lesser punishment? No. But, if there were any compensation involved, I would be entitled to less than someone who had been identically attacked while sober.

I can't see anything surprising or inconsistent in this,. I fact, I cannot imagine what other answer I could give. Yet for some reason 'Rachael' seems to assume that my motives for taking this view are selfish, pro-rapist and anti-woman. She insisted "Whatever language you choose to use, it is blatantly obvious that you are placing a degree of responsibility with the victim of rape who is drunk."

In other words, "Even though you say quite clearly and unequivocally that rapists are entirely responsible for their actions, whether their victims are drunk or sober, I will nonetheless conclude that you mean the opposite of what you say, and too bad". Well, how can civilised people argue if one side assumes that the other side is lying, presumably because it has already dismissed the other side as wrong and evil? No free society can last long if disagreement is based on this level of contempt for opponents. This is how opponents become enemies, and argument is replaced by force.

I suppose there may be some confusion here among people who have not read the article carefully, and think that the compensation is paid by the rapist himself. If this were the case, the argument would be wholly different, since the compensation would form part of the punishment, and lower compensation would mean a reduced penalty. But this isn't the case.

Let me stress this central and relevant fact. The compensation forms no part of the rapist's punishment. The compensation is paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority out of money raised from taxes, levied on hard-working, wholly innocent people. The rapist does not pay it himself (Nor should he, in my view. The idea that a rape could be expiated with a money payment verges on the obscene. Compensation direct from criminal to victim should be reserved for property crimes).

Even more interesting, the money can be paid when there has been no conviction and even when the person accused of the crime has been acquitted. The standards of proof that rape has been committed (for the purposes of compensation) are significantly lower than those required for the conviction of the alleged rapist. Does this extraordinary fact provide a clue as to why the issue is so sensitive? How many alleged rape victims, whose assailants have been acquitted, have even so qualified for such payments? I shall be looking into this.

Someone called "JW" took a position similar to "Rachael's", assuming that my position was solely aimed at women. "JW" enquired:"Would Mr Hitchens's views have been the same if it was a drunken man who was raped?" Well, of course they would. Why on earth shouldn't they be? What would be the difference? The mind staggers and reels that anyone could imagine otherwise. Once again, we here meet the conviction that I am evil in myself, and concealing secret unspoken views behind the ones I actually express, and quite different from them. I am not allowed to think what I actually think. because I am not orthodox, I must therefore be the embodiment of evil. This is just a way of closing your mind to thought. A conservative who wants rapists punished? Why, that's like a conservative who's against the Iraq war. It doesn't make sense. So he must be lying.

Peter Preston made a more uncomfortable point. He said :"It (my argument) seems to suggest that stupid people deserve less sympathy than others. Certainly some women - and especially some young women -, nowadays released by our national culture from the natural inhibitions of more civilised ages, seem to see no personal risks in foolishly aping the excesses of their menfolk, sometimes, it is reported, paying a very high price of personal trauma for their stupidity."

"Stupid people". Who are they? I don't think 'stupid' can be applied to people in general, only to their actions. Highly intelligent people do stupid things, all the time. Supposedly unintelligent people often do very clever things. It is the action that should be judged, not the person who does it. A person who might be dismissed as stupid by the well-educated could well turn out to be far more use in a real crisis than any of them. Princess Diana, not exactly an intellectual, outwitted the Rolls-Royce minds of the British establishment and nearly destroyed the monarchy in an elaborate and well-planned revenge for slights real or imagined. Was she stupid? I don't think so.

My point remains. A victim who suffers bad consequences which were made more likely by his or her stupid behaviour deserves less sympathy than a victim who behaved wisely and still suffered bad consequences. Anyone disagree with that?

"Medbh" asks "Are women supposed to expect that all men are rapists who will rape as soon the opportunity is there?"

I don't see how my argument leads to this conclusion. Once again, men are responsible for the rapes they commit, not their victims. We are talking about nationalised cash sympathy for the victim, not justice for the culprit. Nobody can know if an apparently civilised person will attempt rape under certain circumstances. All men are obviously not rapists. Some obviously are. The point is, you are more likely to find out if they are rapists if you are drunk and wholly at their mercy than if you are sober and slightly less at their mercy. And anyone with any intelligence can work that out for herself, even if her mother never told her.

The same "Medbh" goes on to ask: "What if a drunk woman goes home with a man she is friends with? Is it still her fault if she gets raped?" What does "Medbh" mean by "still" her fault ? I never said it was her fault under any circumstances. Rape is the fault of the rapist. I said she would be entitled to less sympathy ( and compensation) for her plight if she were drunk. Why does "Medbh" obdurately seek to deny the difference between the two separate statements?

Someone calling himself or (less likely) herself "Fed up from Coventry" asked :"Surely if the woman carries no blame for being raped whilst drunk, the same must apply to the man? Thus, being drunk should be an adequate defence for the perpetrators." I'm so sorry, but I really cannot see what this person is driving at. First, and yet again, the question is not one of blame for the rape itself, but one of the amount of sympathy and compensation for the victim. Why? Because the victim, by behaving irresponsibly, has made it easier for her assailant to behave wickedly. The rape victim is not in any way to blame for the rape, which is wholly the responsibility of the rapist. Rape is an act carried out by the rapist, using force on a weaker person who (in some cases) has trusted him. The point is actually quite different. Drink makes it easier for people to do stupid and wrong things, because it removes the inhibitions that conscience and moral training have placed on us. People who get drunk, and then rape, murder, steal or drive dangerously are not excused their crimes because they got drunk, and nor should they be. The law says that they knew the risks when they decided to get drunk in the first place. Wouldn't it be inconsistent to say that tis applied to civil culpability just as much as it applies to criminal guilt?

But we are getting closer here to what may be the real issue - what actually is rape? Most of us were brought up to believe that it was a violent attack by a male stranger on a female victim, generally in an isolated place. However, thanks to the collapse of marriage and the disappearance of the old courtship rules, it has now been redefined so as to include a much wider range of behaviour. And drink plays an important part in quite a lot of the circumstances which lead to rape in its modern shape. But I'm not going to go into that here, as it would be a whole new article.

Victoria Smith said " It is reasonable to expect that women, as sexual beings, should be able to express sexual availability and interact as active rather than passive sexual beings. Asking them to do otherwise to avoid rape is like asking people to stay indoors after 6pm to avoid being mugged, or asking men to stay celibate in order to avoid false rape accusations, on pain of any compensation being cut. It's not reasonable in a way that, say, asking people not to scream abuse at strangers who might thump them is. Or, say, asking men who drink half a bottle of wine a night to keep their counsel about who the drunken idiot is might be."Up to her final sentence, I entirely agree with her that this is reasonable, though I also think this state of affairs is regrettable . There's little point in pretending that we are going to reinstate marriage and courtship any time soon.. First, she seems to have an inflated idea of the effect of half a bottle of wine. And second, since when did 'expressing sexual availability' mean being drunk?

This brings to mind one fascinating attempt to codify the new relations between men and women, made since the early 1990s at the campus of Antioch College in Ohio. Here's an extract from what is now the Antioch "Sexual Offence Prevention Policy":

"Consent:Consent is defined as the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexualconduct. The following are clarifying points:-Consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity.-All parties must have a clear and accurate understanding of the sexual activity.-The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent.-The person(s) who are asked are responsible for verbally responding.-Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.-Use of agreed upon forms of communication such as gestures or safe words is acceptable,but must be discussed and verbally agreed to by all parties before sexual activity occurs.-Consent is required regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history, or currentactivity (e.g. grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity).-At any and all times when consent is withdrawn or not verbally agreed to, the sexualactivity must stop immediately.-Silence is not consent.-Body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans are not consent.-A person can not give consent while sleeping.-All parties must have unimpaired judgement (examples that may cause impairment includebut are not limited to alcohol, drugs, mental health conditions, physical health conditions).2-All parties must use safer sex practices.-All parties must disclose personal risk factors and any known STIs. Individuals areresponsible for maintaining awareness of their sexual health.These requirements for consent do not restrict with whom the sexual activity may occur, the type ofsexual activity that occurs, the props/toys/tools that are used, the number of persons involved, thegender(s) or gender expressions of persons involved"

Please note that it insists that all parties (including the woman) must have "unimpaired judgement".This document, especially in its early stages, has been laughed at quite a lot in the past, which I think is unfair. It's a genuine attempt to deal with a big problem that a lot of people don't even want to acknowledge. By trying to deal with it, it admits that a problem exists in the post-Christian world we now inhabit. There's quite a lot more (Google it). The trouble is that an attempt to codify sex in this way is immensely difficult, because it assumes an almost total absence of trust and mutual support. In the end, you could draw up a document on the rules of sex which was as long as the EU Constitution and it still wouldn't have the same force as the Church of England's 1662 marriage service - which is founded precisely upon trust and mutual support, and on permanence - its most crucial and binding clause being "till death us do part".

"Tamara' compared being drunk, a voluntary act, with being mentally ill, which is involuntary. This is slippery, in my view. She also asked "So a man or woman who is killed whilst walking down a street at night is responsible for putting themselves in a dangerous situation? ". To which I would reply, that would depend a bit on the street. In many African cities, the hotel management place guards on the doors after dark to prevent guests leaving the building on foot. If someone ignored these guards, would he be partly culpable if he were then attacked or mugged? Yes, of course. I do not think we yet have anything this bad here. She added "I'm sick of men trying to blame women because they can't admit to the fact that a large proportion of men are sexual predators." Well, so am I, Tamara, though I wonder what you reckon a 'large' proportion is, and what the basis of your claim is. Perhaps your experience is untypical. I would refer you to Wendy Cope's couplet "Write it in fire across the night. Some men are, more or less, all right".

Responsibility for the crime, and culpability for making the crime more likely, are two separate things. Just as prison and compensation are two separate things.

Someone styling herself "Rape Victim" writes :"I'd like to see how you would feel reading this article if you had indeed been raped!So let me ask you, even though I had had a few G&T's and gone home.... and some sick pervert followed me and waited till i got inside my front and then forced himself inside and then raped me... that i do not deserve sympathy because i had had a few drinks?? You are out of order... i am so angry at reading your article." It is difficult, and it is meant to be, to give any response to such a contribution. We must accept that this is a true account of an actual event. But in that case it is not the sort of incident we are talking about. I don't see how the 'few G&Ts' involved in this case have any bearing on the amount of risk. If the rapist was unknown to the victim, followed her home and forced his way into the house, then an entirely sober person would have faced exactly the same danger. I very much hope that I should have written the same article, though perhaps with even more conviction, had I suffered such an outrage.

Greg Clarke wrote :"Your logic follows that a raped fit woman deserves less sympathy then a raped obese woman as fit women are more likely to be raped."No it doesn't, and what a crude way of putting it, too. Do try to read what is written before telling me what my logic leads to. I specifically ruled out any defence based on the idea that a man believed he had been in some way provoked into rape by the attractiveness, allure etc of the woman. I think this is a miserable excuse for an argument and would hate to live in a society where men were presumed to be uncontrollable bundles of animal lust ( as the Prayer Book puts it , 'brute beasts that have no understanding') who couldn't be trusted alone in a room with an attractively-dressed woman .Though such societies do exist, I do not make excuses for them or seek to fall to their standards. Men are obliged to restrain themselves.

A person calling himself/herself "Just deflated" asks : "Where in this article is any blame apportioned to the rapist? To the man who purposefully takes advantage of a woman's drunken state to forcefully violate her? ". Well, "Just deflated", it's right there in the second paragraph, thus : "Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been." Couldn't you read even that far before condemning me without evidence?

"Englishgirl" opines :"Well if you agree with Peter then wow, i guess you're no different than Muslims who think women should cover up and do everything not to tempt men who will rape them any opportunity they get. i guess we should all hide locked up with chastity belts hmm?"

This is another person who condemns without reading. I clearly said as follows :"Nor is being drunk – which makes you miss danger signals, make bad judgments, lose consciousness in unsafe places and then lose your memory, too – comparable with ‘dressing provocatively’ as the feminist thought police would like to pretend.

If women want to dress provocatively, then they should be free to do so, and I say thanks a lot to those who do. Our society is based on self-restraint. We can be provoked and still behave ourselves. We do not need to compel women to dress like bats, as many Muslim countries do, so as to curb the unchained passions of hot-blooded menfolk."

I got into trouble with someone else for that "thanks a lot" remark. Lighten up, is my response.

AS for "Emma", who wrote "The comments agreeing with peter make me so sad as a young girl. I see now all men want to rape me and are waiting for the moment to do this. This makes me never want to date or marry. Men are all just potential monsters", I really cannot identify any comments which suggest that all men want to rape her, or anyone else. Where does she get this from?

It was heartening to read the comment from Shan Morgain. It is easy for men to agree with my position. But for a woman it's much, much harder. It will get you into trouble with the sisterhood if they even suspect you of thinking this sort of thing. What she says is a sad summary of the unhappy position women find themselves in . But its a realistic and an honest one.

As I said at the beginning, if anyone feels that I have not responded to an important argument, I would ask them to point this out and I will try to do so. It is physically impossible to reply to or acknowledge every single message, but I am grateful for the serious purpose of those contributors who have joined the debate with constructive intent, and also for those who, even if they have been intemperate and intolerant, have given me the opportunity to defend my position.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Blimey, didn't expect that volume of ire to come crashing down. In my defence, I was trying to write a dissertation with a temperature of 104 degrees and desperate to do anything other than real work, and was aiming to convey the opposite of what apparently actually made it through the Calpol haze. Nice to be called 'potty', though - a word usually reserved for eccentric middle-aged women, so quite a coup for someone of my age, I would think. My points were thus:

1. There's been a massive number of reactionary responses, in particular from feminists (a group to which I do not belong) not just here but on other prominent blogs, wikipedia, etc. A lot of them seem shocked that Mr Hitchens doesn't agree with them. My point: just because one has genuine convictions that seem self-evident doesn't mean one should be surprised that others have similarly strongly-held views to the contrary.

2. That others proclaim viewpoints that are the opposite to one's own does not mean, as many on the left automatically assume, that they are deliberately trying to be inflammatory or annoying (and if Michael Savell doubts such people exist, he should spend an hour in an economics lecture at the LSE).

3. I had assumed, wrongly, that Mr Hitchens did fall into this camp, but I now do see that he holds his views with conviction.

4. My inclusion of the (albeit whimsical, evidently aimed at the wrong audience and nicked from someone else's speech) stuff about the Fabians was to make the exact point that the Utopian idea that "if the right wing could just be taught philosophy they'd change their views" fails in part because it assumes that their views were not legitimately or solidly based in conviction or knowledge to begin with. This is clearly wrong; which is, by the way, what the LSE now teaches - that all views are worthy of debate, and all those who hold them are deserving of respected.

So my message was primarily aimed at those on the left (as I am) - by all means disagree with Mr Hitchens as fervently as you are able, but don't assume that he is either evil, stupid or deliberately provocative. It happens that his views and the possible consequences of them do worry me (agreed, 'scare' might have been a little hyperbolic), but I don't for one minute think they are anything other than genuine.

(As an aside to Mr Savell: Martha was indeed an unusual name until about 5 years ago - primary schools up and down the land are now filled with marthas in a very annoying way. And it's not, in my case, biblical.)

And I'll ignore the condescension of that remark for the moment, Eric D.

Of course not. Because for your analogy to work in the current argument, the second person would have to become too drunk to notice that the dice were loaded or that the cashier was making off with his creditcard through the backdoor. In cases 1 and 3, I suppose the 'duress' makes them both robbery and 1 also fraud, but I'm not a lawyer.

Look, Hitchens' main point was that you can be called partly culpable for having a crime committed against you when drunk. I disagree. Your points seems to be that culpability differs with whoever commits the crime against you, who you are, what you do and whether you know them or not. I got that the first time and disagree with it too. Such arguments cannot be made into guiding principles; not without entering victim-blaming territory, in focusing more on the victim than the perpetrator, on circumstances rather than injury.

I have to stress that I do believe in personal responsibility and keeping yourself safe. Of course, it's important, and of course it's more than sensible. I just don't think that it can be demanded, and that some kind of punishment can be dealt out when you don't meet those demands in someone else's view, which is basically what happens if compensations are cut for whatever reason having to do with the victim's actions prior to injury.

Also, and I think this is something that cannot be set aside in this particular discussion w/r/t compensation, focus on the victim has always been a big part of any dialogue about sexual violence. The average woman gets showered with messages about personal safety and behaviour. And if something happens anyway, self-blame and guilt and 'why haven't I done so and so and why did I do such and such' are very much part of the trauma (and too often, part of the criminal process or the decision to report it or not). While it's a sad fact that so often, there's just not much you can do, even if you think there is.

The compensation discussion seems just another instance of inserting that narrative into the issue of sexual violence, again making it the focus. And if it were to be made part of policies, that's definitely a way of condoning the narrative, making it official. Again.

Imagine you are on some quango handing out compensation. You have £3000 you must hand out and have three cases to review.

The first one is an elderly person who answered the door to someone claiming to be a builder. This was a cowboy builder who botched an unnecessary roof re-tile and demanded an exorbitant payment from the pensioner. The builder then drove the pensioner to the bank, under duress, and took their life savings.

The second one is a person who went into a casino and played at the craps table. To start with they were winning, but the casino staff kept, very persuasively, inviting them to take advantage of the complimentary drinks. Eventually this person became blind drunk and lost their life savings in the casino.

The last is someone who'd withdrawn their life savings from one bank to move to another. In between they are mugged and the money is stolen.

michael savell:
"Msm, the subject was compensation which we all have to pay; leaving aside the question of Rape for the moment do you really consider that husband/boy friend alleged rape when in a bedroom or even in bed should be paid compensation at the same rate as a brutal assault from someone hiding in the bushes - this was the argument, nothing to do with assault on the way home."

I didn't say anything about assault on the way home. Read what I wrote. But yes, I do. Though the first will be - and is proven to be - extremely hard to prove, so will be claimed less frequently though assault by familiar people occurs much more frequently. Again: is it a women's fault if she's raped by her boyfriend, friend, husband? If you make a difference there, you implicitly take it that it is. That's victim-blaming.

About the drinking: okay then, let's focus on the lowered inhibitions of drunken men who go on to rape.

About the anus/vagina thing: you said "the vagina was designed for intercourse, ie;penetration, the anus is not", and implied that the crime thus would be more severe. The vagina may be designed for intercourse while the anus is not - some might debate that but okay - but neither are designed for /rape/. And I can't believe I have to point this out to you. Let me point something else out: it's an incredibly insulting thing to say and an incredibly insulting difference to make.

"Is it Rape if the male decides he doesn't want sex and the female continues fondling,"

Peter says he prefers to argue than get drunk. Now isn't that perfectly finer than those who get drunk to argue? I agree that he isn't aiming to achieve any moral superiority over anybody, he just fully knows the harm done by many who cannot and will not drink sensibly. Here's one for thought: I saw someone ridiculed for his dress-sense, as he walked with a friend, probably home after a few pubs, and the savage who wasn't satisfied with the baiting had to hit him, knock him down and then to some applause, I might add, from his gang, stamp on this lads head. He was unconscious when I got to him from the other side of the road - I was alone and could've done nothing before-hand. And still not happy, one of them threw a full can of lager at us. 7 or 8 lads free to walk on. No police, and an ambulance without a security guard. I think they need them these days.

The fact is EricD that the amount all depends who you are claiming from, which court and which lawyer you retain, IE; it is a bit of a lottery. There are supposed to be guides
but it still depends on the amount of drama and also whether the case is publicised; some groups will obviously make sure they get the greatest coverage and a lawyer versed in dealing with that type of claim.
These type of claims are paid by us and so, in some cases, it seems just a way of transferring money.
Insurance companies need proof of financial interest so they won't suffer unduly.
Msm, the subject was compensation which we all have to pay; leaving aside the question of Rape for the moment do you really consider that husband/boy friend alleged rape when in a bedroom or even in bed should be paid compensation at the same rate as a brutal assault from someone hiding in the bushes - this was the argument,
nothing to do with assault on the way home.
Drinking lowers defences and removes inhibitions for both men and women. We have to accept that. In the past there have been many proven cases of bad behaviour, male and female, affray and suchlike and provided that the defendant was of good character the sentence was usually low, drunkenness was allowed for in the same way that drugs were allowed for. Are we to change all this? Bearing in mind that the number of incapacitated women causing affray is rising and gangs of young women are becoming more violent because of drink, should jail sentences be mandatory?
This vagina/anus bit. I was relating to 2 people who have expressed, in some way and at some point to have sex, maybe in bed whereupon one changes/his /her mind. Presumably there has or will be some arousal, please don't tell me the anus will also get the message. Is it Rape if the male decides he doesn't want sex and the female
continues fondling, because this is also becoming an issue now, we need common-sense not incepted dogma.

I see, despite my last post, that people continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Who do I refer to? The Oddie, of course. I mean, first off, he is supposedly what they call a 'twitcher' - well, there is plenty of opportunity for surveillance there. Also, as a Celebrity 'Goodie', he obviously has access to the highest echelons of Society. Furthermore, he has a beard. Think about it - have you ever seen Bin Laden and the Oddie in a room together?

"But thank you Mark as you have clarified something I knew already - what is required is a New Paradigm of Moral and Religious Conservatives of all races and cultures to face down the Globalisation One World UN/EC/US uber-liberal paradigm. I stopped working last month for a massive Global Corporation (I was a mere cog) and believe me, ALL their Human Resources/employee aimed propaganda was concentrated on the uber-liberal paradigm - no expressions of support for the married family, nation or Religion at all, but lots of veiled threats along the Tolerance/Diversity lines."

Yikes!!! I did not intend to provoke such an opposition. You can join me in the Revolution, but would you mind standing in the back for awhile? We need people to hold down the fort in the back.

'-Regarding HitchensWatch, I find that things with the suffix 'Watch' often contain Bill Oddie, which in itself seems like a good reason to avoid.'

Hmm - got me thinking - an OddieWatch? - I always thought the other two were funnier, and certainly Graeme Garden never got the credit he deserved - yes indeed, this is a dubious 'Goodie' who perhaps we should be keeping tabs on.

Eric D: Yes, it can be assumed. There is no reason why a) age would make a difference or b) there is a difference between being raped by someone you trust or a stranger. I repeat: going home with someone doesn't give them the right to rape you, just as walking on the street doesn't give anyone the right to rape you. Why is that so difficult to understand?

My goodness, that is the only sort of conservatism worth fighting and dying for! (not that I intend to do either, mind you)

Actually, look at any civilisation that has coherence and stability from pre-colonial aborigines to 1950s Britain, and from the point of view of the New Left paradigm, they are ALL moral conservatives - the Asian population in Britain, if the latest Birth figures are anything to go by CERTAINLY are (approximately 95% of births registered in marriage - I think we can safely assume that most of these were not registry office weddings) But, honestly Mark, do you really believe that their lives and prospects would be better, nicer, more agreeable, if they chose to imitate the British Whites (50% legitimate) or the Afro-Caribbeans (30%) Actually, I know your 3am consciousness knows that they wouldn't be (Otherwise how else is the superior relative achievement in education and career explained?)

Really, with all your talk of shifting from Left to Right, you have effectively undone all GreyWolf's good PR work and made HitchensWatch sound like, well - a typically creepy piece of Marxoid monitoring.

This is because you are using the language of Hegelian Dialectic - whereas in reality, for example, white Christian American Patriots are amongst the most vociferous opponents of the Iraq conflict - where do they stand on the paradigm?

But thank you Mark as you have clarified something I knew already - what is required is a New Paradigm of Moral and Religious Conservatives of all races and cultures to face down the Globalisation One World UN/EC/US uber-liberal paradigm. I stopped working last month for a massive Global Corporation (I was a mere cog) and believe me, ALL their Human Resources/employee aimed propaganda was concentrated on the uber-liberal paradigm - no expressions of support for the married family, nation or Religion at all, but lots of veiled threats along the Tolerance/Diversity lines.

To paraphrase 'Communism is Super-Capitalism, Capitalism is Super-Communism.'

I really do not think Chris Hitchens, a mere individual, deserves all this.

Regarding Rob Slane's comments on women dressing provocatively; there's clearly an important distinction to be made between that and drunkenness. I don't believe that either Peter or any other reasonable individual would argue that 'acting provocatively' is the issue here. The issue is one of personal responsibility: if one is drunk, one is more likely to make bad decisions, put oneself in danger, and generally come across as an 'easy target' to predatory men; dressing provocatively has none of these effects, and to argue that it does is to take the first step towards excusing rapists on the grounds that 'some women are asking for it'. Skimpy clothes may say 'come and flirt with me' or 'I'm available', but they *never* say 'easy target'.

Another commenter referred to 'modern clothing' and the (distasteful) way younger women dress today. I suspect that's a view that's been put forward on many different occasions across countless decades, and indeed centuries. My personal opinion is that showing a bit - or a lot - of skin is often something to be applauded/encouraged, and that a society where that was an accepted and normalised expression of comfort with and pride in one's own body, rather than something to be frowned upon disapprovingly, would be a society rather less likely to see attacks of this kind.

-The Last Gentleman, you seem to have badly muddled good manners with larcenous behaviour and other transgressions of criminal law. Your slavish obedience of a big corporation's, highly visible, social responsibility PR agenda won't make any difference. Supermarkets couldn't care less about parents getting small children to the store, but they do care, very much, about parents getting large amounts of groceries from the store to their car. Can they be so cynical? Yes they can. Supermarkets always have a lovely smell of freshly baked bread. A smell that's pumped from the bakery around the store by an elaborate system of pipes, because it makes you spend more. I really can't see how never parking on a yellow line is really going to result in one less knife crime.

-Regarding HitchensWatch, I find that things with the suffix 'Watch' often contain Bill Oddie, which in itself seems like a good reason to avoid.

-The rape article outrage still rumbles on. To turn it on its head. If compensation must be paid (I would prefer it not to be). Can I ask the outraged if it can therefore be assumed that they agree a fifteen year old girl who is raped, by a stranger, on the way home and subsequently commits suicide after the trauma of the court case, should trigger the same compensation payout as a twenty-five year old who went home drunk with a former boyfriend, she'd dumped two weeks earlier, and has a successful rape claim prosecuted against him? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between criminal convictions compensation figures. The sad fact is both parties would have, most likely, received far more compensation if they'd fallen off a ladder whilst working for the local council and claimed insufficient training.

The abuse of alcohol in Britain by some people is caused partly, at least, by the fact that we in this country are over- regulated ; look in many work places and we are issued rules like naughty school children who, would, if they weren't regulated be expected to look for ways to break the rules.
It simply doesn't happen in North America or in our European neighbours.

I'm just a rube from the colonies but i see Peter Hitchens' stated argument of compensation to be based at Common Law, namely the duty to mitigate losses. Generally stated every plaintiff has the duty to minimize losses from personal injury. There is some entanglement even here because common law, as I a lay person understand it, expects this duty after the insult has occurred. In the case of a woman drinking at a bar, if the duty to mitigate losses were to be applied it would seem that we are asking this woman to act before any insult was perpetrated. This seems to me to be grossly unfair and ingenuous to the common law principle. In this instance and under the premise that humans by their nature maintain a moral sense and moral prohibitions, Mr. Hitchens' argument would pose some problems most notably that a woman in this instance would be asked to do something beyond what is expected of all other persons who do not gender identify as a woman. It would also suggest that she adopt the spurious proposition that all men are potential rapists. On the other hand, if the assumption is that in fact all men ARE potential rapists, then the conditions for an insult such as rape are merely a matter of timing and opportunity and in this instance if the inevitable plaintiff takes no steps to mitigate her damages then Mr. Hitchens' argument is sound and that woman should not be compensated to the same level as a woman who does attempt to mitigate her losses (by not -- in that same bar -- drinking excessively, downing ecstasy, taking a poorly lit route, etc., etc.).
In any case, if my sense of this argument by Mr. Hitchens is at all off the mark I would welcome a clarification by Mr. Hitchens himself. (I have found the vast majority of responses to Mr. Hitchens' original argument to be non-sequitor, reactive and better scribbled on recycled cardboard placards).

Not all of us at CHW reacted the same way to your 'attack'. I think some of us care more about what you say/write than others, and respond accordingly. I was frankly just glad to see you describe the site as 'amusing' - I took it as a compliment even if it wasn't intended as one.

I also think you're generally correct to suggest that what inspires the site is the belief in Christopher's ongoing conversion from left to right, which somehow seems to look more hideous by the day. What I object to is that I think this conversion is largely the result of Christopher having been corrupted by fame and wealth and the urgency to keep up that lifestyle.

He has gone from simply supporting the initial invasion of Iraq to becoming what I think is essentially a propagandist for Washington's foreign policy ambitions, particularly that part of Washington influenced heavily by neoconservatism, a movement that embraces lying to achieve its ends.

Christopher didn't leave any of us. He left his prior self. He left the Hitch of the late 80's and early 90's who used to rail against things like US imperialism and blowhards like David Horowitz who loudly leave the left.

As for our site's treatment of you, Peter, it has been very much mixed. I thoroughly enjoyed your report about North Korea and wrote a post in February under the title, "Excellent Report by Hitchens on North Korea" if you care to look it up. Your view of foreign affairs, I can generally get along with...it's your religious and social conservatism at home that I think most of us would have a quarrel.

Thank you for your courteous response Mr GreyWolf - reading what you have put there, I would say that this is part of a bigger picture, an example of NWO manipulation. Perhaps worth broadening out the persepctive?

Oh well, as I said at another post, I just need to get my own back yard sorted, so I won't go THERE!

'Well I have been drunk, and was attacked and kicked nearly to death for absolutely no reason by people who I have no doubt Mr Hitchens would refer to as 'yobs' or 'louts'. And, personally, I find the suggestion that I am therefore less deserving of sympathy (or even partially culpable) grossly offensive and, indeed, ludicrous.'

Yes - EXACTLY the same thing happened to me, and I feel massively and personally offended by what Peter said.

I would like to know more about what happened to 'Hidari'(1st September 11.58 am). I stated that if I had been drunk and attacked I would accept that it was partially my fault. I explained why in the original post. Being drunk makes one less sensitive to danger signals, slower to react to risks, etc. He says he was drunk, got attacked, and that his drunkenness (which was presumably voluntary) did not make it in any way more likely that he would be attacked. Once again, I suspect he has decided not to distinguish between the *responsibility* of the attackers for attacking him which is total and deserves severe punishment, and the *culpability* which might attach to him (if he were seeking taxpayer-funded compensation) for putting himself in a position where those attackers found it easier to attack him than they would have done had he been sober. He makes a sarcastic remark about police protection which I think is plain silly.

Can he explain what took place and why his being drunk had no bearing on it? I have to accept that it is possible that the fact that he was drunk made no difference, but rather than being 'offended' by my own declaration on my behalf, which could not possibly have referred to him personally since I'd never hitherto even heard of him, I think he has to accept that the effect of drink on judgement and behaviour is such that it is also possible that it did make a difference.

I'm delighted to be visited by Mr "Greywolf" from HitchensWatch. I'm surprised that he and others at that site are so sensitive to what I intended as light-hearted remarks. They seem to have been greeted there as some sort of bitter, resentful attack. They were not intended as such.

I did get the impression some time ago that the main reason for the site's existence was a feeling among former admirers of CH of having been in some way abandoned by my brother. No doubt there are plenty of other contributors. But that seems to be the dominant theme.

I do find that when CH's left-wing former enthusiasts come across me, it can cause several different kinds of confusion. This is a general problem anyway, which I have with the BBC above all, and which has been a problem since the Iraq war. I'm also interested by the way in which some observers pronounce that Christopher is moving 'to the right'. Having actually done this myself, many years ago, I don't think that's what he's doing at all. He knows very well where it leads, and doesn't wish to go there.

On the specific rape issue, I do think that if you're going to publish an attack on what someone says, it's better to give a reasonably full account of it there and then, rather than giving very brief selections and a link. I think most of the people who chose to attack what I said tended to leave out what I regard as central parts of the posting. If they had included them, it would have been harder to attack me.

The separation between the issue of responsibility for rape, and the issue of compensation paid by the state to victims of it, was vital to my argument. And I wrote the article because I felt that others probably privately shared my view, but might be afraid to state it because they would face precisely the sort of attack which I then experienced.

"But Mr Greywolf - why would you set up a blog in the first place to monitor a reasonably well known but by no means world famous journalist?"

It began three years ago when the founder, a Scotsman who had moved to New Zealand became incensed at the really nasty abusive treatment meted out by Christopher to Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a young US serviceman killed in Iraq who became an antiwar agitator. And it just snowballed from there. Christopher and Peter are like chalk and cheese. Both are provocative, but whereas I've always found Peter to be sincere and genuine in the beliefs and opinions he expresses, when I think of Christopher ... well, one of his own favourites, the phase "Chaucerian fraud" springs to mind.

Part of the fun of following his regular columns over the past few years has been to check how often they've mirrored the legendary talking points said to have been handed out to the compliant media by Carl Rove. He has added a dash of British spice to the bland neocon propaganda, while telling Americans that they have to fight Bin Ladenists in Iraq, protesting Scooter Libby's imprisonment, revealing to the world that Paul Wolfowitz is a bleeding heart, and Joe WIlson (husband of Valerie Plame) is clueless. We regularly make predictions about what he'll be saying in his next Slate column.

Arguably there is a "Marxoid" instinct behind the entire "Watch" idea, or a "vigilante" one of stalking a man because of what he writes. But none of his watchers wish to stop him from writing but only to register our reactions to that writing. Christopher Hitchens is an exhibitionist who likes to get people's gander up. He enjoys being the focus of attention. Peter is psychologically different and I think it would be cruel to subject to to the "watch" treatment. But Christopher loves being watched. He would be more uncomfortable with a fan site.

Peter's observations notwithstanding, we do try to keep the personal abuse to a minimum and we absolutely don't deal in sordid gossip. As for the drinking, Christopher has on several occasions appeared visibly drunk on US TV shows and behaved rudely. So his reputation as a drunken lout has been firmly established by his own public behaviour. This has made him an easy target for insults about his drinking. Yes, standards of politeness and respect have fallen everywhere in recent decades, and yes I lament that as much as Peter does. But if you watch Christopher, you'll see he has been on a leading edge in the campaign to lower public standards as a sort of journalistic Johnny Rotten.

Oh, I'm still here, Tim. Though I feel a bit alone, and ticking off the boxes on the feminist bingo card has made my hand cramp, so typing is hard right now. 'Lighten up' was the last, I think.

"My point remains. A victim who suffers bad consequences which were made more likely by his or her stupid behaviour deserves less sympathy than a victim who behaved wisely and still suffered bad consequences. Anyone disagree with that?"

Okay, I'll take that bait too. As this has become both a legislative issue and a moral debate, I say yes, I disagree strongly. You and others may extend sympathy as little or much as you like. Where compensation is involved, however, the principle must be that no one is accountable for a rape except for the rapist. It's a matter of principle.

And what exactly is stupid behaviour? Talking to someone you don't know? Flirting with someone you know? Drinking? Going out with a group of women at night? Going out by yourself at night? Wearing a skirt? I'm sure you could find supporters for all of these things. Some would also say I'm inviting crime by carrying my laptop around in what is perhaps a recognisable laptop bag. Are they right?

What you ask of women is to unilaterally guard their behaviour - which is something we're taught to do from a young age on anyway. Believe me, we know all about it. Yes, it is wise, yes, it's a harsh reality, and yes, it's unfair.

But it's /not/ something that's right on principle and it's /not/ right to put it in law. In that sense, drinking /is/ the same as dressing provocatively or any other of these 'behaviours'. Crimes are committed by criminals. The responsibility is solely theirs. Period.

Where rape is concerned, there is and always has been a victim-blaming culture. If you don't see that differentiating between various types of behaviour is a form of victim-blaming and perpetuates this culture, making it hard for victims to come forward only to have their own behaviour examined, I don't know what to say to you.

What I'd like to see, for once, just once, is an article like yours about sexual assaults by men who are under the influence. And I mean more than that one line of yours. Do we regard this as being so normal that it doesn't even warrant examination any more?

By the way, you're also mixing up rape with its legal definition in stating that forms of rape other than the stranger lurking in the shrubs are 'modern'. It's the legislation that's modern, not the crime. But that's another issue entirely.

The whole argument about your article rests with the notion of responsibility. We all have a 'right' to be free from any crime, not just rape, but we all have a responsibility to make and take decisions that reduce the possibility of finding ourselves in situations that make us the victims of criminals.
Such decisions as not condoning crime, even to the level of stealing office paperclips, and ostracising criminals from decent society.
The problem we face from the state is that it condones some crimes, such as false claims of rape, and allows excuses to mitigate the sentence for committing a crime: drug taking, being homeless, poor background et al.
We now have a situation where crimes are no longer crimes, they are statistics. Not enough convictions for rape, so rather than say the system works to protect the innocent, let us ignore the evidence and convict all those accused because it makes the numbers look good. Numbers deceive, in the statistics on detection and solving crime, littering has the same statistical value as murder. I bet that I can get magical detection rates if I concentrate on petty crimes rather than properly investigating serious crime.
It is our responsibility to see that this statistical con is not continued, it is our responsibility to uphold the law - even bad law until such time as we can change it, it is our responsibility to be a credit to ourself, our family and our society.
Before people begin to shoot the messenger, and burn books they don't agree with, we should all look in the mirror and start with parking on yellow lines or in baby and toddler spaces at Tesco, and ask: How can we break the rules of society and yet condemn others when they do the same albeit on a more serious level?
I know this moves to the broader picture from the narrow confine of the original article, but unless you tackle the root - personal responsibility for your own transgressions - all life is the fault of others and you are the victim of things beyond your control.

michael savell:
"I know you were writing of compensation but you appear to make it the same crime, Peter, the vagina was designed for intercourse, ie;penetration, the anus is not - the latter will probably bleed quite profusely and the dangers are very much greater. If the victim is a virgin then that is a different matter."

Erm. It /is/ the same crime. Rape is forced penetration, whether of the mouth, anus or vagina. Without wanting to be more graphic than you, the vagina is designed to produce lubrication before intercourse. Without it, intercourse is incredibly painful. The result is often bleeding and could be a whole lot of other damage. And no, that has little to do with virginity.

But to address the main post: Mr Hitchens, with all due respect, your persecution complex is misplaced. You published your column in a national paper and met with vehement disagreement and agreement, with many people writing in to argue both sides. This is how free speech /works/. Your claim that in the course of this debate somehow free speech was endangered is a rather underhanded one, not to mention silly. Nobody shut you up. People debated with your stance and with each other because they disagreed with you. And I see you still have your platform, which is, ultimately, a lot bigger than all of the commenters' combined.

A fierce debate over a controversial point is not a call for censorship. Neither is calling someone names. No really - it isn't.

On the same note, it doesn't automatically make you right. Yes, your opinion is legitimate, but it's just that: an opinion. It doesn't make the British government officials who changed their positions wrong either. Might it be that it was less 'pandering to PC hysteria' and more seeing the injustice of their previous stance?

As it is, at least a quarter of the Scottish seem to agree with you, as recent research showed. But then, a third also holds the notion that a woman is partially to blame if she's raped after flirting. Make of that what you will.

I must say that from the tenure of your previous article I suspected that the whole point was less being worried about rape and drinking, and more about the money involved. And it seems that I was right.

But I'm glad to see Andy L dispel some of the false allegation/conviction myths, even if it's only from his own thirty years' experience.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.